Piyushkumar Patel v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 21-11003 Date Filed: 12/03/2021 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11003 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ PIYUSHKUMAR PATEL, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-789-014 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11003 Date Filed: 12/03/2021 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11003 Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Piyushkumar Patel petitions us for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for cancellation of re- moval and his request for a continuance pending the adjudication of his application for U nonimmigrant status (U visa application) by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). We will address each of these decisions in turn. I. Patel, a citizen of India, was admitted to the United States on a temporary visitor visa in 2003, which authorized him to re- main in the United States until 2004. In 2020, the Department of Homeland Security served Patel with a notice to appear, alleging that he was removable because he had remained in the United States after the expiration of his visa without authorization and be- cause, in February 2017, he had been convicted of an aggravated assault. Patel moved for the IJ to continue his removal proceedings, pending the outcome of his U visa application filed with USCIS, arguing that the IJ was required to continue the case until USCIS adjudicated that application. The IJ denied this motion, finding that Patel had not demonstrated good cause for a continuance. Pa- tel then applied for cancellation of removal and adjustment of USCA11 Case: 21-11003 Date Filed: 12/03/2021 Page: 3 of 7 21-11003 Opinion of the Court 3 status, claiming that his children would suffer exceptional and ex- tremely unusual hardship if he was returned to India. The IJ denied this application for cancellation of removal. In particular, the IJ found that Patel’s aggravated assault conviction was a crime in- volving moral turpitude. Even if this conviction did not constitute a disqualifying crime involving moral turpitude, the IJ noted that Patel failed to show his family would suffer exceptional and ex- tremely unusual hardship if he were removed from the United States. The BIA affirmed on both the denial of cancellation and the denial of the continuance. Regarding the denial of cancellation, the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision on the ground that Patel did not show the requisite hardship. Regarding the denial of the continuance, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Patel failed to establish good cause. Following entry of an order to this effect, Patel timely appealed. II. Patel argues that the IJ erred in denying his application for cancellation of removal because his Alford plea 1 to aggravated as- sault in 2017 in Georgia state court did not constitute a “convic- tion” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals